Rae & Partners Pty v Shaw

[2020] TASFC 14

Tasmania Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Estoppel
2. › Estoppel by convention
3. › Scope of doctrine
4. › Whether mutual assumption confined to matters of fact or extends to matters of law
5. › Whether assumption of law restricted to private legal rights
6. › Con-Stan Industries Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226
1. Estoppel
2. › Estoppel by convention
3. › Elements of the doctrine
4. › Adoption of assumption
5. › Whether particular level of deliberation required before assumption can be found to have been adopted
6. › Whether superficial or mistaken assumption is operative
1. Estoppel
2. › Estoppel by convention
3. › Mutuality of adoption
4. › Communication and inducement requirements
5. › Whether mutual adoption can be inferred from conduct
6. › Whether independent parallel assumptions sufficient
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Limitation Act 1974 (Tas), s 4
3. › Action founded on simple contract
4. › Six-year limitation period
5. › Whether estoppel by convention prevents reliance on limitation defence

Quick Take

For estoppel by convention in Australia, even if the doctrine extends beyond assumptions of fact to assumptions of law (which the Court was prepared to accept based on the weight of intermediate appellate authority), the assumption must relate to the parties' private legal rights — not to matters of general or public law such as court jurisdiction or the applicability of limitation statutes. A 'superficial' or mistaken assumption is an operative assumption; no particular level of deliberation is required. However, the evidence must establish mutual adoption of a common assumption communicated between the parties, not merely independent parallel assumptions.